So, for Mountain Eagle VIII (Idaho 2018 encampment) the encampment CC has decided to raise the PT standards. For example, I normally have to run a 9:04 minute mile, but to qualify for my intended position at encampment (Flight commander) I have to run a 7:30 mile. I'm personally terrible with running, thankfully I had help from my C/CC (he's one of those 5:00 minute mile guys) and it dropped from 8:19 - 7:29. Anyway, back to the point, here's the requirements:

I'd be interested in hearing Ned's take on this. In a sense I get where I think they're coming from in that the minimum fitness standard now for the Curry Ribbon is to have a pulse (and this is the attempt to introduce Challenge). Interesting topic. Let me take a first try at it based only on your comments, and the document you link to:

The part that I think you question is this prerequisite to attend your Wing Encampment, right?:"All cadets must demonstrate the successful accomplishment of their Encampment Fitness Evaluation within the 6 weeks preceding the submission of their Encampment Application" the implication being that the unfit are not encouraged to apply, or will not be accepted, at an Idaho Wing Encampment, even if they've met the Curry Ribbon (eh, which now has effectively NO fitness test any more...).

So, do the approved, NHQ regs grant him the authority to raise encampment entry physical fitness standards? No and Yes: "NO" to adding requirements to ATTEND, but "YES" to adding fitness as a SELECTIVE factor for STAFF jobs.

Here are the elements I think apply:CAPR 60-1 1 FEBRUARY 2018"9.2.2. Program Guidance. CAP encampments will be conducted in accordance with CAPP 60-70, Cadet Encampment Guide. Encampments may issue operating plans, handbooks, training materials, etc., that amplify, but do not contradict or lessen, that document’s guidance"."9.2.5. Eligibility. To participate, cadets must have completed Achievement 1, and receive per-mission from their parent or guardian and unit commander via a CAPF 60-81..."."9.2.6. Equal Access. CAP maintains a nondiscrimination policy (CAPR 36-1, CAP Nondiscrimination Policy) to promote equal access to cadet activities, among other reasons. Encampment commanders will make reasonable accommodations to cadets who possess physical, mental, or learning disabilities so that those cadets may participate in encampment to the greatest extent possible..."."9.3.1. Curriculum Requirements. CAPP 60-70, Cadet Encampment Guide, outlines the encampment’s curricular requirements. ... The encampment commander is the final authority in determining which participants earn graduation or attendance credit".

CAPP 60-70 March 2017 Cadet Encampment Guide"1.2 Key Program Guidancef. Eligibility. To participate, cadets must have completed Achievement 1 and receive permission fromtheir parent or guardian and unit commander via the online encampment application in eServices. Somehost facilities will require parents to sign additional releases. If space is available, encampments shouldallow cadets from other wings to participate".4.2 Cadet Cadre Selection ExerciseIn an ideal world the cadet cadre will be selected several weeks prior to encampment during a comprehensivecadre selection exercise. Through a program of resume submissions, interviews, a test of academicknowledge, performance during team leadership problems, and demonstration of practical skills in drill, fitness,public speaking, and the like, an encampment not only completes the administrative task of selectingcadets for the various cadre positions, but offers those NCOs and cadet officers a learning opportunity.

The Encampment/CC is clearly encouraged to select staff (like you) competitively (see emphasis on fitness as a selective factor in 4.2) but may not (unless covered in a Supplement) apply tougher standards to attend the encampment. By the regs, ANY Curry cadet should be able to attend regardless of their fitness level (anyone gets in) but your fitness could be a selective factor for staff. The Encampment Commander must conduct the activity under 9.2.2, 9.2.5, et al, which means to apply the standards as is, without modification, unless those publications are modified per an approved Wing or Region Supplement. So, is there such approval?

(PS, my respectful recommendation to defuse any possible conflict and demonstrate compliance would be to revise the document to clarify that those "Encampment Fitness Standards" are part of a Section 4.2 Cadet Cadre Selection Exercise, and apply only to Cadet Staff applicants as staff selective factors, and not as barriers to attendance for either Students or Cadre. I think the activity would then be in compliance with policy and regulations).

From what I've heard the Wing CC has approved it, and the reason as to why. But i have heard nothing about a region approval, does there need to be one? Also I haven't seen a public document of any sort to approve the change, in that case would it be allowed?

Quote

PS, my respectful recommendation to defuse any possible conflict and demonstrate compliance would be to revise the document to clarify that those "Encampment Fitness Standards" are part of a Section 4.2 Cadet Cadre Selection Exercise, and apply only to Cadet Staff applicants as staff selective factors, and not as barriers to attendance for either Students or Cadre. I think the activity would then be in compliance with policy and regulations

So, you're saying that there should be no fitness standards for the basics and staff, but it will be a competitive factor for selecting staff?

I can get behind that.

The reason I heard for the raised standard is because of safety, and so we don't end up like last year (it was easy, very easy). Last year we also had a few cadets that had broken an arm or sprained an ankle before they came, this lead to a handful of cadets getting a free ride all around the base yet still getting the same encampment credit as everyone else who was marching 3-5 miles every day in the heat (our encampment is on a military base that has all of our activities spread out). And for the safety aspect, the mile run is to make sure everyone can march that 3-5 miles everyday (I honestly kind of agree with this, but I and many other cadets were no where close or just barely meeting our PT mile time, yet we pushed through and marched), my point is, running and marching are completely different. The push-ups and sit-ups I have no idea why they're there.

It might help to mention that for the push-ups and sit-ups it is not the crummy 4" "curl-up" or the 3 second push-up, it's as many push-ups as you can in a minute, same with the sit-ups ACTUAL SIT-UPS, I love the actual sit-ups even if I do suck at them.

I doubt mandating any particular PT scores for attend is allowed, however I don't think there would be any issue requiring a certain fitness level to serve in a staff position.

I'm rather dubious on the female standards. For instance, a female 17-yo cadet officer needs 10:22, but a male needs 7:04 (a 3:16 difference)? That's an even worse split than any HFZ requirement (biggest difference being 1:16) although still not as egregious as the largest old PT difference (4:05 difference for a 17-yo airman).

So, you're saying that there should be no fitness standards for the basicsstudents and staff, but it will be a competitive factor for selecting staff?

FTFY

Of course there are, every cadet needs to have passed the Curry, that's the baseline standard.

The most you can do is hold a cadet to the standard for his respective HFZ, and the number you indicateis lower then for 18 yo Phase IV, infact, it's a Spaatz-level run for females. That's rediculous for an encampment FCwho is likely to be about 15-16, and isn't even required to run a mile at all.

The reason I heard for the raised standard is because of safety, and so we don't end up like last year (it was easy, very easy). Last year we also had a few cadets that had broken an arm or sprained an ankle before they came, this lead to a handful of cadets getting a free ride all around the base yet still getting the same encampment credit as everyone else who was marching 3-5 miles every day in the heat (our encampment is on a military base that has all of our activities spread out). And for the safety aspect, the mile run is to make sure everyone can march that 3-5 miles everyday (I honestly kind of agree with this, but I and many other cadets were no where close or just barely meeting our PT mile time, yet we pushed through and marched), my point is, running and marching are completely different. The push-ups and sit-ups I have no idea why they're there.

Those cadets with injuries didn't get a "free ride", they were afforded an opportunity to participate despite their limitations. I would question whether it was a good idea for them to do this, but once there, it's no fun to be at an encampment with a broken arm or not being able to participate fully.

Based only on your comments here, someone is trying to make an argument using facts that are irrelevant to the intention.Saying that the intention is to insure that the staff can march the 3-5 miles (which you apparently believe is a lot, and really isn't that big a deal, encampment-movement-wise). The problem is, they aren't the one's to be worried about, it'sthe students that will be the issue, and their standard is Curry, and in many cases, that Curry is going to be fresh the week of encampment for a cadet who has been in the org a month.

In those cases, having Quicksilver as the FC isn't going to make a bit of difference, and may well influence an environment which would be inclined to haze cadets not living up to this new, artificial expectation.

I just checked the document linked below, and there's also increased expectation for student cadets as well.That's 100% not allowed and isn't going to fly. The requirement is Curry, period. The other evaluations are for development, not a gating factor.

I'll just add this, having any type of PT requirement above CAP regulations really doesn't serve a purpose for an event like encampment, that includes staff. You want a cadet staff made up of leaders and teachers. Having a fast run time does not mean you are a good leader or teacher.

I'll just add this, having any type of PT requirement above CAP regulations really doesn't serve a purpose for an event like encampment, that includes staff. You want a cadet staff made up of leaders and teachers. Having a fast run time does not mean you are a good leader or teacher.

This is one thing I'm worried about, there are several NCOs around the wing that I've seen that would make excellent flight sergeants, but they can't make the cut-off time.

I'll just add this, having any type of PT requirement above CAP regulations really doesn't serve a purpose for an event like encampment, that includes staff. You want a cadet staff made up of leaders and teachers. Having a fast run time does not mean you are a good leader or teacher.

This is one thing I'm worried about, there are several NCOs around the wing that I've seen that would make excellent flight sergeants, but they can't make the cut-off time.

The other practical issue is how small IDWG is, how does ID even have the numbers to artificially limit cadets from participating?

Also >*UGH*< the Wing is still referring to students as "Basic Cadets" - seriously, it's been like 7 years.

I'll just add this, having any type of PT requirement above CAP regulations really doesn't serve a purpose for an event like encampment, that includes staff. You want a cadet staff made up of leaders and teachers. Having a fast run time does not mean you are a good leader or teacher.

This is one thing I'm worried about, there are several NCOs around the wing that I've seen that would make excellent flight sergeants, but they can't make the cut-off time.

Conversely, you want to make sure that the Cadet NCO leading PT is actually able to lead it. The cadet who's 250 lbs and can't run the mile shouldn't be the shining example of fitness.

Maybe it's not "nice" to say that, but that's the real world. Balance out opportunity with practicality.

That said, to Eclipse's point, in the application process, you really have to watch who you're limiting from participating. Having a staff-wide standard does impose restrictions on participation. I heard scuttle from my Encampment that there was an age limit put on Flight Sergeants and First Sergeant; that the cadets had to be at least 14-years-old. Now, that's just gossip to me, and maybe by someone who was hurt over not getting the slot they wanted. But you start opening all kinds of wormy cans there.

Quote

the Wing is still referring to students as "Basic Cadets"

There are a few people floating around who continue to call first-time students "Basics" despite knowing that they're called "Students." One of the comments I had said to me was that the logic was we were calling them "Basics" which could be taken as meaning "Non-exceptional." A few seniors I know of took that as trying to be politically correct, so they refuse to say "Students."

Funny thing about annual CAP activities. When you make a little tweak (like what to call first time attendees) and enforce it, in a couple of years 90% of your staff and 100% of your students will have never known it any other way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Logged

The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.

Funny thing about annual CAP activities. When you make a little tweak (like what to call first time attendees) and enforce it, in a couple of years 90% of your staff and 100% of your students will have never known it any other way.

Depends what the "tweak" is and if you have people who "know better" actively ignoring the change.

It was "basic cadet" for something like the first 10 years I was involved, that's hard wiring to undo, so I slip up more then a little - a verbal slip is one thing, when a wing is writing content and can't be bothered, or worse doesn't know, or worse still clings to some of the other nonsense, inappropriate terms they have always used "because", that's another.

The terms "Student" and "Cadre" were adopted from USAF current usage and have been standard for several years now. They connote the proper relationship between a learner and the staff, whose term "Cadre" was chosen by our USAF customer to reflect a military instructional heritage.That's from the national Encampment Handbook - not from Spams opinion, nor scuttlebutt, and it isn't politically correct in any way. My Wing (Georgia) has been quite slow to adopt that new curriculum, and despite the best efforts of the DCP and staff, the in processing instruction for next weeks encampment still had a leaker: it directed "Basic" students to report to _____. Old habits die hard. We will continue the process until the desired result is obtained.

On the staff selective process. The handbook does lay out a model process as an example for how to treat staff selection as a leadership practical problem in and of itself ("what criteria would YOU use, cadet commander and top cadets"?). It is an interesting read, and its worth considering as a field problem to present, in the light of day, to cadet staff so they can be involved - and that transparency could help cut down on the gossipy crap (no "smoky back room deals").

When I've served as a Squadron Commander I've tried to employ participative leadership by inviting all the cadet officers and senior C/NCOs to a jam session with a white board and membership/training list to "game out" and update the cadet staff road map. I've tried, with general success over the years, to shortcut the gossipy drama crap by actually involving them in forming a cooperative recommendation every six months (term limits) for the next two C/CC selections (C/CC and designee who will understudy as C/CD), and then after concurring I've ordered the selectees (C/CC and C/CD) to mimic the process over the next week without me there, and deliver a recommended staff plan for my consideration. In short, I like maintaining high standards and I set the bar high, then step back and let them work the leadership problem with as little coaching as necessary. My feeling is that's the intent for encampment staff as well (i.e. read the pubs, its there).

Funny thing about annual CAP activities. When you make a little tweak (like what to call first time attendees) and enforce it, in a couple of years 90% of your staff and 100% of your students will have never known it any other way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you make a tweak, and then next year, the next staff makes their own tweak, everyone starts with the "But last year...!!!"

So is there anything that I'd be able to do? I don't want to be seen as insubordinate and I don't want to give up my possible staff position, but I also don't want to let it happen if it's not allowed. Is this just one of those things that I have to sit back and watch it take its course?

I have had a chance to speak with the IDWG leadership, and it sounds like they have an outstanding encampment planned. I would love to visit and see it, but I have a conflict with another CAP activity.

It appears that there was a miscommunication in their website and outreach materials, because all student cadets who meet the standards outlined in the 60-1 will be welcomed, including all cadets with disabilities that can be reasonably accommodated. IDWG had set aspirational PT goals to help ensure that all cadets will succeed, but even cadets not meeting the aspirational goals will be welcome

I believe they will be updating their website and outreach materials to eliminate any confusion.

I have had a chance to speak with the IDWG leadership, and it sounds like they have an outstanding encampment planned. I would love to visit and see it, but I have a conflict with another CAP activity.

It appears that there was a miscommunication in their website and outreach materials, because all student cadets who meet the standards outlined in the 60-1 will be welcomed, including all cadets with disabilities that can be reasonably accommodated. IDWG had set aspirational PT goals to help ensure that all cadets will succeed, but even cadets not meeting the aspirational goals will be welcome

I believe they will be updating their website and outreach materials to eliminate any confusion.

I have had a chance to speak with the IDWG leadership, and it sounds like they have an outstanding encampment planned. I would love to visit and see it, but I have a conflict with another CAP activity.

It appears that there was a miscommunication in their website and outreach materials, because all student cadets who meet the standards outlined in the 60-1 will be welcomed, including all cadets with disabilities that can be reasonably accommodated. IDWG had set aspirational PT goals to help ensure that all cadets will succeed, but even cadets not meeting the aspirational goals will be welcome

I believe they will be updating their website and outreach materials to eliminate any confusion.

Ned LeeNational CP Manager

And this is a fine indicator as to why it's important that these types of questions be raised. Sounds like a matter of clarification, not disobedience.

Nice to know that the higher ups keep an eye out for stuff like this and step in just as a courtesy check.

Agreed! Also, I admire adding a challenging, higher standard to meet for staff selection, or even to try to make a positive change in physical fitness habits for day to day cadet life.

I know that in my prior command (my original cadet squadron of entry), we had done the USAF style sports oriented PT on occasion after completing the regular CPFT, but for decades that unit has run 3 mile PTs, and team fitness station runs which I can't physically keep up with any more (grin - knees are going, going...). For a good while we had also structured our PT events (no, not the test for advancement, but the additional activities) around the ES mission. We did one man fireman short carry, two man "seat" carry, and team litter carry competitions, did ops loaded rucksack races, etc. It would seem that the services are in fact moving back towards that type of PT themselves, based on recent combat experience. See:

I want to emphasize that I'm not at all suggesting combat standards PT for cadets, but, there are some useful fun and ops-relevant concepts there for units that are heavily invested in the ES mission (which is OPTIONAL for all members and is not, I should stress, a mandatory CP element). The popular activity at our just-completed GA WG encampment was, I'm told, the ropes courses and HAA rappelling (REAL rappelling) which was central to a fun week in the Georgia heat at Ft. Stewart.

So this year's IDWG Encampment was better than I expected, there were a few toss-ups here and there but it all worked out in the end. I barely got the position I wanted, but I still got it so I'm happy. We got most of the encampment NRA Marksman qualified, we got one of our ATFs (Advanced training flight) certified GTM3 quals, and we sent around a hundred cadets home with plenty of stories to tell their squadrons and families. I don't know if other wings do this but this year we also had a Standard & Evaluations team that graded flights and indiviuals on knowledge, fitness, team sports, uniform, bunk tidiness, and marching. With each thing you got right you'd earn a point towards honor flight or honor cadet, personally I really liked the idea (I've never seen it done), it helps to keep it fair and not a repeat of last year (honor flight was unfairly chose, and did not really earn it). So overall I'd give the encampment overall a 8/10.

I don't know if other wings do this but this year we also had a Standard & Evaluations team that graded flights and indiviuals on knowledge, fitness, team sports, uniform, bunk tidiness, and marching. With each thing you got right you'd earn a point towards honor flight or honor cadet, personally I really liked the idea (I've never seen it done),

That's a required part of the curriculum now, procedures will vary wing-to-wing, but all encampments are supposed to be do this. You should have also had an evaluation of your basic cadet knowledge when you arrived and on the last day of encampment.

I don't know if other wings do this but this year we also had a Standard & Evaluations team that graded flights and indiviuals on knowledge, fitness, team sports, uniform, bunk tidiness, and marching. With each thing you got right you'd earn a point towards honor flight or honor cadet, personally I really liked the idea (I've never seen it done),

That's a required part of the curriculum now, procedures will vary wing-to-wing, but all encampments are supposed to be do this.

I didn't know about that, oh well, now I do .

Quote

You should have also had an evaluation of your basic cadet knowledge when you arrived and on the last day of encampment.

As staff? Or just the students? I don't recall one of those tests, but I also wasn't on the stand/eval team.

Those results are then supposed to be provided to the line staff so they know the areas that cadets need help.

We put everyone through them, from the students through the C/Enc CC, after all, it's a Curry-level ofknowledge, and should be a quick deal for someone appointed to a line role, since that's basically their job.The results, occasionally, can be somewhat...disappointing...when a Phase III+ cadet can't recite the oath, do the PT, or perform basic facing movements properly, but that's why we do it - if we find an FS os FC who can't drill themselves, we don't want them teaching everyone in their flight the wrong way, afterall, encampment is a training lab for everyone at every post, including the seniors.

Not all encampments put the staff through an ICA, but depending on your role, you certainly should have been awareof them happening, and if you were on the line, seen the results.

Well I didn't see anything like it, or I hadn't noticed it. I guess that's something I'll make sure happens next year.

Certainly you should be aware of it, but frankly if the Encampment leadership isn't aware of it and has a process to accomplish them and tabulate the scores, a single cadet raising his hand at in-process isn't going to make it happen.

We have an SET group that is 6-8 cadets plus and it's still a challenge, though we actually do them twice across the both weekends. so some of it is self-induced.

Well I didn't see anything like it, or I hadn't noticed it. I guess that's something I'll make sure happens next year.

Certainly you should be aware of it, but frankly if the Encampment leadership isn't aware of it and has a process to accomplish them and tabulate the scores, a single cadet raising his hand at in-process isn't going to make it happen.

We have an SET group that is 6-8 cadets plus and it's still a challenge, though we actually do them twice across the both weekends. so some of it is self-induced.

I'm good friends with the higher ranking cadets that would most likely get cadet commander, so I'd take it up to them during or before the planning process, not at in-processing. I'm planning on being PAO or Stand/Eval next year anyway, so if I get Stand/Eval I want to make sure I'm testing people with what they need to be tested with.

I don't know if other wings do this but this year we also had a Standard & Evaluations team that graded flights and indiviuals on knowledge, fitness, team sports, uniform, bunk tidiness, and marching. With each thing you got right you'd earn a point towards honor flight or honor cadet, personally I really liked the idea (I've never seen it done),

That's a required part of the curriculum now, procedures will vary wing-to-wing, but all encampments are supposed to be do this. You should have also had an evaluation of your basic cadet knowledge when you arrived and on the last day of encampment.

It is a little unclear from the OPs description about exactly what IDWG's SET Team did or did not do, but I wanted to clarify that SET Teams (I know it is redundant, but that's how we say it for some reason) are not permitted for at least the standby inspections, and there is no really compelling reason to use them for other purpose.

Quote from: CAPP 60-70, Cadet Encampment Guide, para 6-2 (d)

d. Inspection Party. Inspection is an inherent function of command. Accordingly, encampments will notcreate a permanent inspection party, sometimes called standardization and evaluation teams, for stand-byinspections.

With the mountain of data needed just to comply with the bare minimum requirements ofof the curriculum, who, exactly is supposed to do all that work without SET, and when, exactly, is it supposed to happen, especially during a weekend encampment which can barely keep up with the regular time-creep of the curriculum?

There are 5 quizzes, at least two rounds of ICAs, cadet critiques, timing and scoring of at least 3 TLPs, not to mention team fitness challenges.

You also forgot about this, which is the next paragraph.

"e. Standardized Scoring. Encampments will adopt a single scorecard to be used during each inspection.This practice provides for a consistent measurement of cadet performance. If the flight is developing into ateam as expected, it will score progressively higher marks on the standardized scorecard. For the purposesof consistently scoring inspections that impact honor flight awards, encampments may assign that scoringfunction to a group-level stan/eval team, but as mentioned above, stan/eval teams do not conduct standbyinspections.

There is a difference between "stand by" or what we refer to as "mentoring inspections" and theones used for honor awards, but no reason to have SET?

There is a difference between "stand by" or what we refer to as "mentoring inspections" and theones used for honor awards, but no reason to have SET?

Yeah, pretty much no compelling reason to have a SET, but encampment commanders are free to have a group of cadets to help with evaluations and can even call them a SET. They just can't perform or be part of the inspecting party for the required dormitory inspections descripted in Chapter 6.

I totally agree that someone has to grade quizzes, TLPs, and initial and final assessments, but the average medium to large encampment the existing cadre should be able to handle those tasks fairly easily. After all, the quizzes are normally graded during the class itself, and corrected to 100% on the spot. The TLPs are designed to be evaluated by flight and squadron staff, with flight staff and squadron first sergeants as the suggested debriefers. And the initial and final assessments are normally performed by the flight cadre. There really isn't much left for a SET to do, but the function is available for commanders to use if they desire. (as long as they don't do the dorm inspections.)

And although I have a pretty good idea of what a standby dorm inspection is (as performed by flight, squadron, and group cadre), I honestly have no idea what a "mentoring inspection" is. That does not appear to be a current doctrinal term. Can you give me some idea?

My daughter served as SET OIC at two encampments this summer. She was incredibly busy for someone that’s not needed . I’d argue that the only cadet staff member busier and under more stress is the C/CC.

There is a difference between "stand by" or what we refer to as "mentoring inspections" and theones used for honor awards, but no reason to have SET?

Yeah, pretty much no compelling reason to have a SET, but encampment commanders are free to have a group of cadets to help with evaluations and can even call them a SET. They just can't perform or be part of the inspecting party for the required dormitory inspections descripted in Chapter 6.

I totally agree that someone has to grade quizzes, TLPs, and initial and final assessments, but the average medium to large encampment the existing cadre should be able to handle those tasks fairly easily. After all, the quizzes are normally graded during the class itself, and corrected to 100% on the spot. The TLPs are designed to be evaluated by flight and squadron staff, with flight staff and squadron first sergeants as the suggested debriefers. And the initial and final assessments are normally performed by the flight cadre. There really isn't much left for a SET to do, but the function is available for commanders to use if they desire. (as long as they don't do the dorm inspections.)

It's disappointing that the understanding of the effort and manpower necessary to execute a compliantencampment is not in alignment with NHQ's belief of what is necessary.

Beyond that, I'm not going to micro this here. I'm happy to have the direct conversation with you or others on the NHQ CP team any time you'd like. This is far too complex a conversation for the internet.

And although I have a pretty good idea of what a standby dorm inspection is (as performed by flight, squadron, and group cadre), I honestly have no idea what a "mentoring inspection" is. That does not appear to be a current doctrinal term. Can you give me some idea?

These are the "standbys". We use the terms interchangeably, and stress mentoring the whole activitybecause we found that many less-experienced line cadets didn't take to heart that this is an opportunity to teach and assist a student with issues and set the example for the others in their flights vs. using it as an excuse to..ahem..."raise the military intensity to an inappropriate level"...alas, the message, while clearly conveyed, is not always is not always received without errors.

For next year we will remove that from the nomenclature to insure our terminology is doctrinally correct.

My daughter served as SET OIC at two encampments this summer. She was incredibly busy for someone that’s not needed . I’d argue that the only cadet staff member busier and under more stress is the C/CC.

It was for an Advanced Training Flight, second year cadets that were either cadets that didn't get accepted as cadre or didn't apply for staff. We had two ATFs, one that specialized in Ground Team and one for Color Guard. The GT flight was on a completely different schedule and doing their GT training, and they are all now GTM3 qualified. The Color Guard flight was mostly taught leadership styles and trained to start and lead a color guard. The basic students were only taught from the curriculum.

As long as it doesn't conflict with the encampment's needs, there's nothing wrong with doing "other" along side of it, especially if yo have a lotof people and resources gathered, which is usually the hardest part of any CAP activity.

The issue many wings face with this is having enough adult and cadet staff (cadre)to do something worthwhile without diluting the encampment.

It was for an Advanced Training Flight, second year cadets that were either cadets that didn't get accepted as cadre or didn't apply for staff. We had two ATFs, one that specialized in Ground Team and one for Color Guard. The GT flight was on a completely different schedule and doing their GT training, and they are all now GTM3 qualified. The Color Guard flight was mostly taught leadership styles and trained to start and lead a color guard. The basic students were only taught from the curriculum.

Tracking.

During our staff training, we talked about other wings doing "advanced flights." I didn't hear of any doing that. But as Eclipse said, as long as it doesn't interfere with "actual" Encampment, I see know issue.

So you had a CADET up to 2 AM? And she's supposed to be the person in charge of maintaining standards?Does anybody else here see a "problem"? As in required amount of sleep? It's in the regulation and it's not waiverable.

My understanding of the situation is that there was more work to do than time allowed and to finish up the work of the day and to be prepared for the next day she chose to sacrifice sleep to accomplish her mission. While it’s not in the regulations it’s what she felt she needed to do, again, a personal choice. That being said the commandant quickly rectified the situation as soon as he was aware.

Point here is that there’s plenty of work to do at encampments to justify an SET staff.

My understanding of the situation is that there was more work to do than time allowed and to finish up the work of the day and to be prepared for the next day she chose to sacrifice sleep to accomplish her mission. While it’s not in the regulations it’s what she felt she needed to do, again, a personal choice. That being said the commandant quickly rectified the situation as soon as he was aware.

A choice a cadet should not be allowed to make.

Good on her for the initiative, and let's not kid ourselves, kids these days are up to all hours with homework and other activities, but that doesn't matter - the reg is really clear here as to required sleep, and there should be a mandatedlights out for everyone, respectively, on the schedule, including senior members.

One could also ask where the adults were up until 2am when someone realized she was still up and working. You can't force a cadet to sleep, but you can insure they are in their racks.

These late-night "staff meetings" and similar used to be the norm years ago in my AOR and we kiboshedthat pretty early-on. Used to have whole groups of cadets huddled under desks after lights-out planningthe next day's schedule, etc.

The point is emphasized that if it isn't planned and ready for Day 0, it's not happening. Yes, you have to be flexible, but this is why the planning sessions in advance of the activity are so important.

"You've had 4 months to plan 4 days of activities, 1/2 of which are locked in because of curriculum mandates, logistics, or the flight line, what are you 'planning' now?"

Not every encampment has “racks”, some cadet staff are in private rooms, especially upper level cadet staff. It’s also not unusual for two cadet staff members to share a room.

SET is a little different than most other cadet staff positions as well. Grading, evaluating, senior staff wanting numbers, etc. Maybe it just comes down to time management. In this case she applied for as a team member and was asked to assume the OIC spot. She kicked butt in the position imho, but of course there’s a learning curve.

What I am saying is that she should have known that she is required to get the required minimum hours of sleep.But, the real problem is that the senior leadership did not enforce this rule.So a minor bad on her for staying up trying to fix a problem, but a major hit on her superiors, cadet and senior, who allowed her to stay up.The rules are there for everybody, no exceptions!

I don’t blame senior or cadet staff. She was in a semi private room, was doing what she thought was appropriate to accomplish the mission, the situation was quickly resolved and she learned her mistake. She wasn’t allowed to stay up, they just didn’t know she was. If not for being called out for needing a nap (thanks SkyHornet) it wouldn’t of even been brought up.

That being said, I’ve also been to encampments where cadet staff are allowed to sleep in the “staff” room because senior staff knew they were up after hours. I walked in on that and was shocked. I thought I “caught them sleeping” but it was more like a “why are you bothering” us kinda thing.

We have a little thing at California Wing encampments called "Seeing the Assistant Adjutant". Basically taking a nap.Usually by day 3 or 4 of encampment the long days are starting to show on the cadre, both line and support.So we arrange for the cadre to be able to slip away to get a 1 or 2 hour nap. The results are amazing.The biggest thing is that they are able to think on their feet again. Which is usually the first thing that goes away when you get over tired.In the Air Force aircrew world we called this a Work/Rest Plan.

We have a little thing at California Wing encampments called "Seeing the Assistant Adjutant". Basically taking a nap.Usually by day 3 or 4 of encampment the long days are starting to show on the cadre, both line and support.So we arrange for the cadre to be able to slip away to get a 1 or 2 hour nap. The results are amazing.The biggest thing is that they are able to think on their feet again. Which is usually the first thing that goes away when you get over tired.In the Air Force aircrew world we called this a Work/Rest Plan.

Our Cadet Commander instituted mandatory rest periods; however, that doesn't mean you get sleep. It's a period where you are supposed to be off-duty, not able to be used. But that's about as surefire as any power nap can get.

Anyway, nap time isn't considered a mandatory rest cycle in the pamphlet like lights out rest.

What I am saying is that she should have known that she is required to get the required minimum hours of sleep.But, the real problem is that the senior leadership did not enforce this rule.So a minor bad on her for staying up trying to fix a problem, but a major hit on her superiors, cadet and senior, who allowed her to stay up.The rules are there for everybody, no exceptions!

I don't expect a teenager/cadet to go "No can do, sir. I'm going to bed." Whether they're right or wrong, generally, when you're instructed to 'do-x', you're going to do it.

I would expect them to mention lights out is in XX minutes and let the senior decide how important it is. I've had them do that with me and I usually said Ok, get it done first thing in the AM, after breakfast.

I would expect them to mention lights out is in XX minutes and let the senior decide how important it is. I've had them do that with me and I usually said Ok, get it done first thing in the AM, after breakfast.

I think there’s a a lot of pressure to perform. I know my daughter sees every staff position she’s placed in as a week long interview for the following year. So that being said, a “I’m sorry sir I’m too tired or “I can’t sir, I need my sleep” is probably thought of as exhibiting a certain level of weakness in her mind.

We have a little thing at California Wing encampments called "Seeing the Assistant Adjutant". Basically taking a nap.Usually by day 3 or 4 of encampment the long days are starting to show on the cadre, both line and support.So we arrange for the cadre to be able to slip away to get a 1 or 2 hour nap. The results are amazing.The biggest thing is that they are able to think on their feet again. Which is usually the first thing that goes away when you get over tired.In the Air Force aircrew world we called this a Work/Rest Plan.

I would expect them to mention lights out is in XX minutes and let the senior decide how important it is. I've had them do that with me and I usually said Ok, get it done first thing in the AM, after breakfast.

Exactly!

Okay...and thereafter?

"Cadet, make sure you get this done. I need it tomorrow morning.""Roger that, Sir. But lights out is in 30 minutes.""Do what it takes to get it done." "Yes, Sir."

And then the cadet is up until 0200 working on it. I don't know that this is what happened, but that's entirely plausible and realistic.

It's a military-ish/boot camp environment. And the cadre is pressured into performing tasks that have to be completed, especially when that cadre member rolls in late to the game and has to pick up where a previous person left off (which sometimes means uncompleted tasks are inherited).

It's a learning moment for the cadre to understanding time management and task prioritization, especially when deadlines are tight. But that's also a learning moment for the cadre in understanding that deadlines won't be met, and you have to be prepared to adapt tomorrow. This is not a "failure is not an option" environment. Failure is always an option in cadet activities. You learn from failures. The senior member staffs should make sure that this philosophy exists, and that regulatory standards are still upheld.

Now, in reading the guide, it states that students will receive 8.5 uninterrupted hours of rest. Cadre will receive 8 hours of interrupted rest.

It is impossible to have 8 hours of uninterrupted rest if cadre lights out is 2300 and student wakeup is 0530. The math on that literally says that this schedule is out of compliance. For that to even be on a cadre schedule is incorrect, and for a senior to tell someone at 2300 "I need that tomorrow morning," is even more incorrect, as that senior shouldn't even have the ability to talk to a cadet cadre member at that time.

Students: Personal time at 2100. Lights out at 2130.Wakeup at 0530.

That means the cadre would need to be up and ready to go before 0530 in order to wake up their students and pressure them to get dressed and be out the door. So with lights out at 2300, and having to be up before 0530 (say, 0500), that's only 6 hours of rest allotted.

Now consider the aspect of personal time for students. They're required to have 30 minutes of personal time before lights out. This is when the students are permitted to shower and take care of hygiene needs. This is strictly not training time. But the training officers must perform blister checks after showers. So you're interrupting their personal time for blister checks.

I would expect them to mention lights out is in XX minutes and let the senior decide how important it is. I've had them do that with me and I usually said Ok, get it done first thing in the AM, after breakfast.

Exactly!

Okay...and thereafter?

"Cadet, make sure you get this done. I need it tomorrow morning.""Roger that, Sir. But lights out is in 30 minutes.""Do what it takes to get it done." "Yes, Sir."

And then the cadet is up until 0200 working on it. I don't know that this is what happened, but that's entirely plausible and realistic.

It's a military-ish/boot camp environment. And the cadre is pressured into performing tasks that have to be completed, especially when that cadre member rolls in late to the game and has to pick up where a previous person left off (which sometimes means uncompleted tasks are inherited).

It's a learning moment for the cadre to understanding time management and task prioritization, especially when deadlines are tight. But that's also a learning moment for the cadre in understanding that deadlines won't be met, and you have to be prepared to adapt tomorrow. This is not a "failure is not an option" environment. Failure is always an option in cadet activities. You learn from failures. The senior member staffs should make sure that this philosophy exists, and that regulatory standards are still upheld.

Now, in reading the guide, it states that students will receive 8.5 uninterrupted hours of rest. Cadre will receive 8 hours of interrupted rest.

It is impossible to have 8 hours of uninterrupted rest if cadre lights out is 2300 and student wakeup is 0530. The math on that literally says that this schedule is out of compliance. For that to even be on a cadre schedule is incorrect, and for a senior to tell someone at 2300 "I need that tomorrow morning," is even more incorrect, as that senior shouldn't even have the ability to talk to a cadet cadre member at that time.

Students: Personal time at 2100. Lights out at 2130.Wakeup at 0530.

That means the cadre would need to be up and ready to go before 0530 in order to wake up their students and pressure them to get dressed and be out the door. So with lights out at 2300, and having to be up before 0530 (say, 0500), that's only 6 hours of rest allotted.

Now consider the aspect of personal time for students. They're required to have 30 minutes of personal time before lights out. This is when the students are permitted to shower and take care of hygiene needs. This is strictly not training time. But the training officers must perform blister checks after showers. So you're interrupting their personal time for blister checks.

See the pattern here...?

I tend to agree, except for the blister check part. Personal time restricts training. Not hygiene. Blister checks are allowed. If the cadre or TO was teaching how to shine boots, that is different.

I would expect them to mention lights out is in XX minutes and let the senior decide how important it is. I've had them do that with me and I usually said Ok, get it done first thing in the AM, after breakfast.

Exactly!

Okay...and thereafter?

"Cadet, make sure you get this done. I need it tomorrow morning.""Roger that, Sir. But lights out is in 30 minutes.""Do what it takes to get it done." "Yes, Sir."

And then the cadet is up until 0200 working on it. I don't know that this is what happened, but that's entirely plausible and realistic.

It's a military-ish/boot camp environment. And the cadre is pressured into performing tasks that have to be completed, especially when that cadre member rolls in late to the game and has to pick up where a previous person left off (which sometimes means uncompleted tasks are inherited).

It's a learning moment for the cadre to understanding time management and task prioritization, especially when deadlines are tight. But that's also a learning moment for the cadre in understanding that deadlines won't be met, and you have to be prepared to adapt tomorrow. This is not a "failure is not an option" environment. Failure is always an option in cadet activities. You learn from failures. The senior member staffs should make sure that this philosophy exists, and that regulatory standards are still upheld.

Now, in reading the guide, it states that students will receive 8.5 uninterrupted hours of rest. Cadre will receive 8 hours of interrupted rest.

It is impossible to have 8 hours of uninterrupted rest if cadre lights out is 2300 and student wakeup is 0530. The math on that literally says that this schedule is out of compliance. For that to even be on a cadre schedule is incorrect, and for a senior to tell someone at 2300 "I need that tomorrow morning," is even more incorrect, as that senior shouldn't even have the ability to talk to a cadet cadre member at that time.

Students: Personal time at 2100. Lights out at 2130.Wakeup at 0530.

That means the cadre would need to be up and ready to go before 0530 in order to wake up their students and pressure them to get dressed and be out the door. So with lights out at 2300, and having to be up before 0530 (say, 0500), that's only 6 hours of rest allotted.

Now consider the aspect of personal time for students. They're required to have 30 minutes of personal time before lights out. This is when the students are permitted to shower and take care of hygiene needs. This is strictly not training time. But the training officers must perform blister checks after showers. So you're interrupting their personal time for blister checks.

See the pattern here...?

Clearly indicates no one is externally vetting the schedule for even the most basic math.

And continues to reinforce how important experienced senior members are to encampments, not to mention consistent oversight by Wing DCP staff who are also experienced in encampments.

Based on both comments here, and my real-world contacts, a lot of Enc CC's seem to treat the Guides and Regs as optional and take a very laissez faire attitude about the schedule mandates.

There's a big difference between unforeseen circumstances that cause a late rack time once in a while (things happen), but when it does, the positive pressure should be "we missed themark and are off book, you need to get in bed ASAP, and pay better attention to the clock tomorrow...".

Also why the idea of hiding time, or the schedule, from any participants is a poor practice.

People want to make an issue of the military structure and say things like "students don't need to know when or where, just follow directions".

That generally works in BMT because the training staff are...you know...trained, have literally been there beforethemselves, and have demonstrated to a high standard they know how to push recruits.

That is decidedly not the consistent case in CAP, for everyone involved including the seniors.Many have never been to an encampment, or for those who have perhaps a different wing or location, others have never been in any position of real authority or influence before, despite their grade, and few are the members who experience the scale of an encampment on a regular basis at their home squadrons.

That's why it's incumbent that those at the highest level of staff be diligent the whole time from the first planning meetingsthrough processing the final report(s).

It's a training lab for everyone, not just the students, and in many case 2x's more for the cadre and seniors.

Also why the idea of hiding time, or the schedule, from any participants is a poor practice.

People want to make an issue of the military structure and say things like "students don't need to know when or where, just follow directions".

That generally works in BMT because the training staff are...you know...trained, have literally been there beforethemselves, and have demonstrated to a high standard they know how to push recruits.

That is decidedly not the consistent case in CAP, for everyone involved including the seniors.Many have never been to an encampment, or for those who have perhaps a different wing or location, others have never been in any position of real authority or influence before, despite their grade, and few are the members who experience the scale of an encampment on a regular basis at their home squadrons.

That's why it's incumbent that those at the highest level of staff be diligent the whole time from the first planning meetingsthrough processing the final report(s).

It's a training lab for everyone, not just the students, and in many case 2x's more for the cadre and seniors.

I think this is a spot-on point.

I can understand that for the first few days, perhaps, hiding the schedule. But after that, there's nothing wrong with providing the schedule to people, so that they learn to become self-sufficient.

It's tough to train people "everything they need to know about being a cadet" in a week. If the goal is to teach them everything a Cadet Airman (most basic learning level) needs to know, then teach them to be self-disciplined and self-aware (i.e., bearing). Boot camp them for the first few days, and then start transitioning them to be keepers of their own time. If they know wakeup is 0530, then by 0530 on Day 3, they should start waking themselves up to be ready and not having to be woken up by the cadre.

A tough balance exists between allowing cadets to "run Encampment" and having oversight (and some degree of control) over the cadet cadre. Like I said before, learning opportunities and opportunities for failure must always exist. But they must also be corrected. If the schedule crumbles the first day, it should be a "What went wrong? What can we do to make sure it doesn't happen again?" moment. It should not be a "That's no big deal; it's fine" moment.

Any time I've overseen a cadet activity, one of my first lines of questioning to the cadet in-charge is "Did this go out? When did you plan on having it go out? Did it get passed down the chain yet?"

Let cadets screw it up. Let it fall apart. It happens. Mentor them in the cleanup, but always ensure compliance. No activity should be allowed to slip away under cadet control to the point that compliance is jeopardized.

This is the stuff that should be trained at the lead-up training weekends. But I mostly see drill practice and how to use your command voice appropriately. That's not staff training; that's instructor skill training.

For clarification, I have zero intent of pointing fingers here or calling anyone out. But it seems like there are multiple questions with how Encampment are being run nationwide (and those variations are okay). We've just seen some recent posts on Encampments skirting around regs, whether in sleep accommodations or physical fitness requirements that have raised eyebrows. Maybe the regs should be relaxed in a rewrite, but they need to be enforced to current standards in the today.

It's been discussed before, but it would really be beneficial to have "experts" audit encampments throughout the country. We pay a considerable amount of money to send CI teams around the country every month, running an encampment properly is at least as important as a CI.

Perhaps our NHQ development person could find a corporate sponsor to assist with travel expenses or ask the Air Force for additional CEAP funding to essentially do their job of encampment oversight (imagine asking for airlift support!). Just having a third-party observer cleans up a lot of shenanigans, everyone wants to be on their best behavior when guests arrive.

I know we informally get this sort of thing with Col Lee, but it would be nice to get him some help.

Perhaps our NHQ development person could find a corporate sponsor to assist with travel expenses or ask the Air Force for additional CEAP funding to essentially do their job of encampment oversight (imagine asking for airlift support!). Just having a third-party observer cleans up a lot of shenanigans, everyone wants to be on their best behavior when guests arrive.

CAP had that, for years - CAP-USAF was the overseer and final approval of all encampments, worked pretty well in my AOR, and kept people on a track. It's been well commentedhere and elsewhere that the CAP-USAF presence historically was "inconsistent", but in many wings, at least at a minimum, the SD or later LR-ADO had to review and approve the schedule, curriculum, and CAPF 20.

That's gone now that Enc CC's can self-certify. Most encampments still had CAP-USAF people present, they wouldn't even have to raise additional budget, and at leat the ones that I know, would love to be more involved.

It's been discussed before, but it would really be beneficial to have "experts" audit encampments throughout the country. We pay a considerable amount of money to send CI teams around the country every month, running an encampment properly is at least as important as a CI.

Perhaps our NHQ development person could find a corporate sponsor to assist with travel expenses or ask the Air Force for additional CEAP funding to essentially do their job of encampment oversight (imagine asking for airlift support!). Just having a third-party observer cleans up a lot of shenanigans, everyone wants to be on their best behavior when guests arrive.

I know we informally get this sort of thing with Col Lee, but it would be nice to get him some help.

You wouldn't necessarily need to do that at the CAP-USAF level. You could have an evaluation done by another Wing (like a joint representative). The intent isn't to restrict Encampments and make sure they run by the textbook, but to ensure that compliance is maintained through planning and execution.

It's just my own opinion, but having a third-party approve a schedule seems to be a bit much. I think a lot of cleanup can come from AARs. Let's see the schedule after Encampment. Show the documentation you used to conduct Encampment. That will determine the level of oversight in next year's Encampment.

What happens in planning is that a tentative schedule is developed, and then things change during Encampment. And then, when the next day's schedule needs to be modified, the planning crew is missing information on how to prepare for the next day, and can't publish a schedule until they receive approval from the top. The approval gets dragged out, and now you have an overdue schedule and people are working on it after-hours.

At the end of the day, all these regulations and pamphlets exist. But they have to be read, and communicated down the chain. It doesn't help if only the person running Encampment read the pamphlets. The cadet staff should be fully aware of their restrictions just as much as the seniors. And I'm not, at all, saying that didn't happen. But in working with cadets regularly, and overseeing activity planning, I just know that it's a thing that tends to happen.

"It's not a safety hazard." Okay, maybe not. But it becomes a problem when you get caught making an oopsie big enough to where, the next time, CAP-USAF or NHQ wants to say "Hey, no more. You're done."

You wouldn't necessarily need to do that at the CAP-USAF level. You could have an evaluation done by another Wing (like a joint representative). The intent isn't to restrict Encampments and make sure they run by the textbook, but to ensure that compliance is maintained through planning and execution.

It's just my own opinion, but having a third-party approve a schedule seems to be a bit much. I think a lot of cleanup can come from AARs. Let's see the schedule after Encampment. Show the documentation you used to conduct Encampment. That will determine the level of oversight in next year's Encampment.

This pre-supposes there is any continuity from year to year. In many wings there isn't, at the encampment level or the DCP.

What happens in planning is that a tentative schedule is developed, and then things change during Encampment. And then, when the next day's schedule needs to be modified, the planning crew is missing information on how to prepare for the next day, and can't publish a schedule until they receive approval from the top. The approval gets dragged out, and now you have an overdue schedule and people are working on it after-hours.

This isn't what I was suggesting, things do happen during the activities, especially in regards to weather, so sometimesactivities have to be moved around, but the required rack times, chow times, in / out processing, and related rarely do, and in the case of rack time should not. If the activity is scheduled in 1-hour blocks, it's a simply thing to "move this here and move that there" (BTDT for 15 attachments), but you have to have a schedule walking in Day 0 that at least complieswith the high-level mandates of the program. When those high-level errors are exposed, there's almost always more underneath.

For over a decade, while CAP-USAF was still involved at the approval level, we would be consulting with the SD or LR-ADO as to what our plans were, the vector of the schedule, and how we intended to comply with the mandates. During the activity, the SD, LR-ADO, or one of the RAPs would sit with the Commandant and go over the curriculum matrix and the schedule to see how close to the mark we were going to get, and give us the "OK" at the high level.

Afterwards we would submit full detail along with the F20, and I can say for a fact it was actually read and occasionally questions were raised before they signed and submitted the F20.

For a number of years that essentially disappeared, however I was happy to see this year that the RAPs who visited us were very interested in what we were doing, and seemed invested in helping.

But there are a >lot< of places that overworked / inexperienced / inconsistently trained / well-intentionedvolunteers can cut corners or institute "good ideas" when real oversight is lacking, and then you're back to "hoping", which is CAP's number one OPS Plan.

At the end of the day, all these regulations and pamphlets exist. But they have to be read, and communicated down the chain. It doesn't help if only the person running Encampment read the pamphlets. The cadet staff should be fully aware of their restrictions just as much as the seniors. And I'm not, at all, saying that didn't happen. But in working with cadets regularly, and overseeing activity planning, I just know that it's a thing that tends to happen.

Agree - but how do you vet that in a world where the organization is desperate for staff who can put in this much time?

Things change every year, and encampment staff officers have to be fully current on the entire program, not just CAPP 70-1. I've argued for years that Encampment CC is a full-time CAP job, and in many cases, including for a long time me personally, it was just "one more on the pile".

If anything there should be a PD track or staff college for "major activity chairs" or similar.

You can't be an IC for a SAREx that encompasses 20 people in total and no aircraft without 5-10 years oftraining, mentoring, and demonstrable experience, but you can be an Encampment CC with a 5-figure budgetand 150 participants primarily because you have the week off.

But there are a >lot< of places that overworked / inexperienced / inconsistently trained / well-intentionedvolunteers can cut corners or institute "good ideas" when real oversight is lacking, and then you're back to "hoping", which is CAP's number one OPS Plan.

I'm in absolute agreement with you on this.

Encampment is never the time to learn on-the-job. By this point, you should be executing what you have already learned in the lead-up training (with the tweaking and mentoring that goes along with it).

Quote

how do you vet that in a world where the organization is desperate for staff who can put in this much time?

Things change every year, and encampment staff officers have to be fully current on the entire program, not just CAPP 70-1. I've argued for years that Encampment CC is a full-time CAP job, and in many cases, including for a long time me personally, it was just "one more on the pile".

If anything there should be a PD track or staff college for "major activity chairs" or similar.

You can't be an IC for a SAREx that encompasses 20 people in total and no aircraft without 5-10 years oftraining, mentoring, and demonstrable experience, but you can be an Encampment CC with a 5-figure budgetand 150 participants primarily because you have the week off.

You're absolutely correct on this. It's a tough conundrum.

Organizing mass training events that last several days or a week is a big challenge that has a lot of moving parts. And it's really tough to balance the training/mentoring side with the management of the activity. I've run into that at the local level. I've run into that outside of CAP. It's immensely challenging when you don't have people who can commit (especially those who back out late in the planning/preparedness cycle).

There's a bit of a culturalism in CAP that being a 'volunteer organization' means we have to 'get by with what we have.' That's not the case. I think it goes back to that thread on Professional Volunteers and Volunteer Professionals. It's a job that you signed up to do. The organization didn't volunteer to hand you a gig.

None of this is to say that everyone skirts by and does as they choose. Sometimes the volunteer aspect, though, crosses lines and cuts off the focus a bit. There are some people that are fantastic at organizing a major event, and they stack it with people that they can push to perform. And there are some people that love being the project leader but aren't the greatest at project management, despite being a subject matter expert in their field. It turns into "Then who else runs it?"

All of the above is why organizational benevolence regarding decorations and promotions shouldalways be decidedly in the members' favor, and benevolence regarding behavior and regulations should always favor the organization.

How many wings will hold a hard line and put people through weeks of made-up nonsense about a dec or promotion, but choose activity leaders based on presence and / or look the other way when major tenants of the program are violated for expedience?

I think the standards DO need to be raised. You see all of these fat-bodied cadets walking around in their utilities looking horrible as hell when we need to follow the weight standards just as much as active-duty airmen do. If we are representing something bigger than all of us, then we should represent the USAF in a fashionable manner.

I think the standards DO need to be raised. You see all of these fat-bodied cadets walking around in their utilities looking horrible as hell when we need to follow the weight standards just as much as active-duty airmen do. If we are representing something bigger than all of us, then we should represent the USAF in a fashionable manner.

I think the standards DO need to be raised. You see all of these fat-bodied cadets walking around in their utilities looking horrible as hell when we need to follow the weight standards just as much as active-duty airmen do. If we are representing something bigger than all of us, then we should represent the USAF in a fashionable manner.

I guess it’s a good thing then that they’re training future leaders for all walks of life, not just military leaders. After all, our cadets of all shapes and sizes go on to do great things in just about every field.

Logged

The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.

Current policy is that cadets under 18 are not subject to height weight restrictions. Over 18... Agreed, over the line guys need to be moved out of USAF style per the regs until they meet them.

Two. Per current program of record and EEO policy you may not restrict overweight kids from joining nor push them out of your unit. We just relieved a guy down here for doing that (pushing out the "fatties"). If you do so you are subject to disciplinary action for wilful violation of EEO and CP policy on the grounds of restricting access to a federally funded program for youths who aren't subject to DoD fitness reqs.

Third. Adolescents especially 13 year olds aren't AD or even boots on Parris Island. Referring to them derisively using your language in a targeted manner can be considered hazing and is also grounds for your removal. (I can say that because Ive relieved people for it).

I respect your motivations here in seeking a better program; yet, our program of record isnt about weeding out but rather is about inspiring and building UP. I want to strongly suggest that you consider attending a TLC course series asap to absorb the current Program of Record per 60-1. We need solid NCOs to help run this great program... By the numbers!

All of the above is why organizational benevolence regarding decorations and promotions shouldalways be decidedly in the members' favor, and benevolence regarding behavior and regulations should always favor the organization.

How many wings will hold a hard line and put people through weeks of made-up nonsense about a dec or promotion, but choose activity leaders based on presence and / or look the other way when major tenants of the program are violated for expedience?

Who is going around violating tenants? Any arrests made yet? Or did you mean tenets?